Looks at picture of pseudo food. smiles. looks at something else, the cheeseburger not having excited any worthwhile response.
btw I meant dialectic, not didactic. Canute, conciousness itself is the arguement against what you said. You do not need to believe conciousness exists for it to exist. It's just absurd to "believe" that conciousness exists when you experience it (to some degree atleast). Obviously conciousness exists, because it IS not because you think it is. There I have now done what I said I wouldn't. I will not drive this point further, it's a matter of the ego. The will to win arguements is pointless and an unneccesary indulgence. I am no longer responding.
Why ever not? In a way you're right. But you have to take what I said in context, and read it. I said 'system of knowledge'. There are therefore three points to be made. Firstly, you are forced to believe that your consciousness exists. Secondly, as you say, you can know you exist without any uncertainty. But then this is not a system of knowledge so is an irrelevant point. Thirdly by 'knowledge' many people these days mean provable facts. (What 'we' can know rather than what 'I' can know). The existence of your consciousness is not a provable fact and therefore by some views is not knowledge. There's certainly no need to be so goddam high and mighty anyway. What did I say to get you so riled up? Canute Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Forgive me Canute, I certainly did not mean to offend you like that. What I might say is that I have lost my faith in 'systems of knowledge' and have made the choice to pursue direct experience of life and perhaps "truth". My post does seem a little harsh and rash come to think of it. Perhaps I was a little too blunt? What I mean to say is that, I don't want to 'indulge' in any logical dialectic anymore, this is solely a personal choice I have made. Therefore I will no longer present arguements for what I say that is in anyway related to the metaphysical or absolute truth. My physical mind is simply too fallacious to comprehend any of it. Why? because MU. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So I'm sorry for sounding 'high and mighty' I guess it was an ego indulgence of another kind. And if I had truely chosen not to follow the mind of the ego I would have simply not posted anything.
Siu Bao and his student were resting from their journey, seated beneath a tree in the morning light. All about them dewy apples hung from its branches; the sunshine glinted through the dewdrops, making each one a tiny world of beautiful refractions. The master pulled down an apple with one hand, and as he did the dew rained down upon both of them. Looking up at the tree, he recited: "The tree weeps for the loss of an apple, but the apple would only have fallen on the ground. I could never grow an apple, but how can I cry? How sweet it looks! How sweet it tastes!" And so saying, he bit into the apple with a resounding crunch.
At the end of their journey, Siu Bao and his student had arrived at the home of the Golden Lady, who judges the mind of all who go before her. Siu Bao tarried before going to her temple, however, and visited the many stands of confectioners and snack-makers. He purchased a golden waffle, thick with jam and dusted beautifully with powdered sugar. His student asked him, "Is this how one prepares to see the Golden Lady?" "I do not know of another way," the master told him. At last they mounted the steps to her temple, and walked behind the others who went before the Lady to hear her wisdom. All those who visited the Golden Lady tried desperately not to impress her, for to impress her with their enlightened nature would be a failure of the way. She was possessed of great beauty, and seated herself upon a golden throne, but still wore only a simple sweater and a pair of jeans. "What do you see?" asked the Golden Lady of one mendicant. "I see nothing but blue waves, and the blue sky," the monk said, his eyes downcast. "Ah," the lady said, but nothing more. The monk went on his way. Many went before her, saying quiet, profound, peaceful things, each trying harder not to impress her than the last. Finally Siu Bao came before her. "Why have you come here?" She asked him. "To bring you this waffle," the master smiled broadly. "Aw, that's nice," she said. "Damnit!" All the other monks cried in unison.
Well, the apple one wasn't bad. Can you grow an apple? Not without the help of a tree... the crying tree thing was just poetry; it was intended to create a collision between poetic reflection and human desire, but at the same time demonstrate that the two may be mutually inclusive.
As for the waffle one, that's a pretty transparent attempt to bring the failures of the pseudo-ascetic into the light, much like the "I am the only one who has not spoken" koan. Of course, it also brings about the question of the Golden Lady, and whether she knows or cares about any of the zen maundering that's going on around her.
Initially I agreed with this statement but as I think about it more I think you are wrong (and so was I for agreeing). I don't think one can be "one with the tao" nor do I think one should want to be. One should respect and understand the tao. If one does that, I believe the conclusion is that you will be one with the tao soon enough. LIVE while you have the opportunity. Maybe you're right in that you are closest to the tao on the day you are born. You'll be one with it the day you die, and you were one with it before you were born. I think the trick is to become the harmony within the complexity of yourself. Free your mind? I'm down with that. Maybe so. Ah, exactly. I believe that is actually done through full-on acceptance that knowledge is relative/subjective/fleeting. (sidebar: When examining the words of another, do we look for the way the underlying concepts relate to one another or do we just flatly examine it for the words we think they said?) I don't think the majority of people are capable, even if properly coached. Hmmm. Can you coach enlightenment to someone who isn't interested? Do you think most poeple are interested? I've been wondering if everyone observes the observer. Certainly we are all observers, and I think the majority of people observe themselves a smidge, but really it seems that the attention or focus of the observer of the observer (observer of self) must be strong/accurate/insightful for the person to be enlightened.
